|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 12:41:45 GMT -5
I fully understand that it was unprecedented. No problem there.
He assumed that it would never be kept in print. That was obviously his mistake.
It's not in a contract for no reason.
How is it immoral if both parties agreed to it at the time and Alan Moore is a fully grown adult, obviously an intelligent person, and everything is legal ?
Corporations purpose is to make money. I'm pretty sure DC wouldn't have kept printing Watchmen just to screw Moore. They were making money doing it, as is their right and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2018 13:26:44 GMT -5
I fully understand that it was unprecedented. No problem there. He assumed that it would never be kept in print. That was obviously his mistake. It's not in a contract for no reason. How is it immoral if both parties agreed to it at the time and Alan Moore is a fully grown adult, obviously an intelligent person, and everything is legal ? Corporations purpose is to make money. I'm pretty sure DC wouldn't have kept printing Watchmen just to screw Moore. They were making money doing it, as is their right and purpose. So you're saying that the Reserve Clause in professional sports was moral? Just curious. The actions of DC were outside what was contemplated by the contract. They found a loophole. That type of action is generally viewed as legal but sleazy. Good for them for being sleazy. It's certainly possible they wouldn't have just kept printing Watchmen to screw Moore. But they've also gone out of their way to be shady and screw Moore since then. But that's okay because corporations are supposed to make money and that makes it all okay. We simply aren't going to agree about this ever. I'm never going to understand what would compel someone to bend over backward to support a faceless corporation with a history of screwing creators over the creators who actually produce something that gives us joy. I've seen it time and again with Moore, with the Kirby Estate, with the Siegel Estate, with Steve Gerber...the list goes on and on and on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 13:48:14 GMT -5
I'm not saying they have to own the rights; just that that's how it's been for decades. That's why other publishers like Image have done so well. DC did nothing wrong in their contract with Moore. He knew the industry, was a seasoned professional, not some teenager like Jerry Siegel, and signed the contract. You're argument that he already had the story when he came to them wouldn't hold up in court. Not sure how you came up with that train of thought. I've never heard of it but don't think it applies to the situation we're discussing. Creators have done that for years. It has no bearing whatsoever on the terms of the contract.I'm all for creator's rights, but, when the creator signs a contract with terms that differ from that, and the creator is an adult, especially a seasoned, intelligent professional, then I have a problem with that creator later crying foul when it doesn't go his way. Moore is my single favorite comics author. I love the guy's work, but I've never agreed with him on this matter and never will. DC did nothing wrong. Yes they shot themselves in the foot by alienating Alan who has had a tantrum about the whole Watchmen thing, but Levitz tried to make it right with him and he wouldn't play ball. We don't know what the terms were, but Paul Levitz is a good man and one I respect immensely. Frankly, he's part of the reason I really like DC. I'm sorry Moore is so bitter and are barely produces any work any more. Actually it would and that's why DC settled with the Siegel and Shuster estates recently because there was a very real chance the courts would rule in favor of the estates in the Superboy case. It's happened a few times, and the publishers settle every time because they don't want the legal precedent set against their practices if the courts rule in favor of the creators who bring pre-created work for them that the forced into a work-for-hire agreement, if the precedent is set, a floodgate of suits would follow and their IP libraries would be in jeopardy. Settling is expensive int he short term, but less dangerous and potentially less expensive than losing that type of case in the long term. For the plaintiff's they are getting the financial security out of the settlement without having to put the effort into exploiting the IP they might win, so it's attractive to them as well. It seems win-win, but it can also be a loss because it allows the practice to continue. -M
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 24, 2018 14:09:09 GMT -5
The contracts in the Golden Age were a stamp on the back of a check that, when endorsed, effectively ceded all rights to the character to the corporation.
I'm not saying it was right, but it was standard practice then.
Apples and oranges here with two teenage boys from Cleveland and Alan Moore, seasoned professional comic book writer, who had signed many contracts over his many years in the business.
The Siegel and Shuster suit is a different matter entirely going back to the very earliest years of industry.
I'm curious; you cite other times this has happened and my limited knowledge of the industry is leaving me blank as to where that has happened as precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 14:14:38 GMT -5
The contracts in the Golden Age were a stamp on the back of a check that, when endorsed, effectively ceded all rights to the character to the corporation. I'm not saying it was right, but it was standard practice then. Apples and oranges here with two teenage boys from Cleveland and Alan Moore, seasoned professional comic book writer, who had signed many contracts over his many years in the business. The Siegel and Shuster suit is a different matter entirely going back to the very earliest years of industry. I'm curious; you cite other times this has happened and my limited knowledge of the industry is leaving me blank as to where that has happened as precedent. They've all been settled out of court-The Ghost Rider case, the Simon estate, the Kirby estate, etc. there have been several suits brought and the publishers have wound up settling every time to avoid some kind of precedent decision when they haven't succeeded in having the case dismissed outright on technicalities. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 24, 2018 15:56:41 GMT -5
The contracts in the Golden Age were a stamp on the back of a check that, when endorsed, effectively ceded all rights to the character to the corporation. I'm not saying it was right, but it was standard practice then. Apples and oranges here with two teenage boys from Cleveland and Alan Moore, seasoned professional comic book writer, who had signed many contracts over his many years in the business. The Siegel and Shuster suit is a different matter entirely going back to the very earliest years of industry. I'm curious; you cite other times this has happened and my limited knowledge of the industry is leaving me blank as to where that has happened as precedent. You still don't get it. Moore's contract on Watchmen was unprecedented. He negotiated a contract like none before. DC found a loophole. There was really nothing more he could have done. I say again...for the umpteenth time...as a lawyer...chances are a seasoned attorney wouldn't have done better for Moore...because NO PUBLISHER had done before what DC did with Watchmen. I'm not sure what you're asking in the last sentence. Other times what has happened? If it's about DC screwing with Moore...there's the entire ABC debacle. There's V for Vendetta (the comic and the movie). There's the recall of LoEG. There's the LoEG movie. There's Beyond Watchmen. There's using Promethea without telling Moore (which at this point I'm sure he doesn't care, it's just par for the course) or Williams. If it's something else then I'm unsure what you're asking.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 24, 2018 15:59:52 GMT -5
The contracts in the Golden Age were a stamp on the back of a check that, when endorsed, effectively ceded all rights to the character to the corporation. I'm not saying it was right, but it was standard practice then. Absolutely untrue. The work-for-hire stamp on the back of the check didn't appear until the mid-'60s and were a direct result of Joe Simon's attempt to reclaim the rights to Captain America. Contracts were a rarity in the Golden Age, with those artists and writers not working on staff at a publisher or packaging service forced to constantly hustle for assignments (moreover, many creators were paid in cash... when they were paid at all). Nor did character rights always wind up with the publishers. Jerry Iger, for instance, retained the rights to all the characters his studio created for Fiction House (including Sheena) and apparently some of those he did for Quality as well, transferring characters like Wonder Boy and Phantom Lady to other comics lines after Quality cancelled them. The business paradigm of the comics industry was so completely different in the '30s and '40s (most publishing houses were essentially family businesses rather than publicly traded corporations, just for starters) than it was by the time Moore signed his deal with DC for Watchmen that comparing the two eras is meaningless. Cei-U! I summon the history lesson!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 24, 2018 17:23:50 GMT -5
SB is right, you can't plan for something that never happened before.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 24, 2018 17:26:39 GMT -5
Also from what I see, once Moore refused to continue to do any more work for DC, maybe they felt they didn't owe him anything.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 24, 2018 22:33:03 GMT -5
I'm constantly amazed that super-hero fans who look up to those paragons of truth and justice and looking out for the little guy are so incredibly quick to jump to the defense of corporate giants over creators. I'll never get it. Yeah, this is the part that always gets me. Not just here but anywhere and everywhere I see this question brought up, it happens every time. I can only think it's a sign of how addicted fans are to their superhero fix, they identify more with the company that provides it to them than with the creators, who they seem to see as mere instruments used by the company to produce the comics. And if the instrument gets in a dispute with the company? Well, then they're now a malfunctioning instrument that threatens the steady supply of superhero product. And we can't have that!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 25, 2018 8:26:05 GMT -5
I'm constantly amazed that super-hero fans who look up to those paragons of truth and justice and looking out for the little guy are so incredibly quick to jump to the defense of corporate giants over creators. I'll never get it. Yeah, this is the part that always gets me. Not just here but anywhere and everywhere I see this question brought up, it happens every time. I can only think it's a sign of how addicted fans are to their superhero fix, they identify more with the company that provides it to them than with the creators, who they seem to see as mere instruments used by the company to produce the comics. And if the instrument gets in a dispute with the company? Well, then they're now a malfunctioning instrument that threatens the steady supply of superhero product. And we can't have that! I've been mulling over this comment for a while and my take is that your average comic fan has no horse in the race , so to speak. I guess we can only purchase what is released and it doesn't involve us what the company and creator is doing to each other. I don't think anyone is routing for the big two to screw the artist, maybe some people even consider the Alan Moores of the world to be the well off and not worthy of the" little Guy" status. The bigger picture is that the system that the big two have is work for hire and will always stay that way because many new creators are drooling to work on Batman, Spider-man etc and can be taken advantage of . Heck, even Todd Mcfarlane tried to pull a fast one over Neil Gaiman regarding the Angela character ownership. The King is dead, long live the king.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 25, 2018 10:37:55 GMT -5
Just a random thought- there are two different commercials that highlight owls. One is for eyeglasses and the other for an online college. It's strange for there to be that kind of mixup.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 25, 2018 10:46:42 GMT -5
Just a random thought- there are two different commercials that highlight owls. One is for eyeglasses and the other for an online college. It's strange for there to be that kind of mixup. There're actually four different ad campaigns using owls right now. I blame Harry Potter. Cei-U! I summon the originality gap!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 25, 2018 11:25:27 GMT -5
I guess I'm surprised that there isn't a battle to claim the owl as a spokesman/avatar.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 25, 2018 12:02:17 GMT -5
I was thinking last night about trademarking the name "Superb Owl" so I could sell licensing rights.
"The Official [fill in blank] of the SUPERB OWL!"
All I have to do is charge less than the NFL does to license the name "Super Bowl".
|
|